- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:24:37 +0200
- To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-07-25 09:51, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Jeu 25 juillet 2013 08:18, Julian Reschke a écrit : >> On 2013-07-25 07:24, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> A user notified me that status codes 428, 429, 431, 511 introduced in >>> RFC6585 by Mark & Roy are not mentionned at all in the current 1.1 >>> draft. >>> >>> Shouldn't we copy them there, or at least add a reference to RFC6585 so >>> that implementers know that these codes exist ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Willy >> >> No, that would send the wrong message. >> >> The list in the spec is not exhaustive; there's an IANA registry for a >> reason. > > But is there any good reason not to consolidate the codes that were known > at the time? As I said: it sends the wrong message. What's relevant is the IANA registry. If you have a specific proposal to make *that* clearer in the spec, please go ahead. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 08:25:10 UTC